jbl Posted May 31, 2015 Share #1 Posted May 31, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was looking at Erwin's initial impressions of the M246: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-50/ I'm on a few waiting lists, but is it just me or do the M9M shots look no worse and if anything a bit cleaner? Does anyone have both and can comment on their experience? -jbl Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 Hi jbl, Take a look here Erwin's M246 samples. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jbl Posted May 31, 2015 Author Share #2 Posted May 31, 2015 Then again it's at 2x so maybe I'm just insane. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted May 31, 2015 Share #3 Posted May 31, 2015 Yes agree, 200% is overkill unless that's all you do all day long. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted May 31, 2015 Share #4 Posted May 31, 2015 Reminds me of the M240 introduction, I didn't feel the M9 images inadequate and use them interchangeably. Both the M9 and Monochrome were great successes, Leica may not have wanted to stray too far. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted May 31, 2015 Share #5 Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) The MMII seems to have worse noise at high ISO... However it's sensor won't corrode so it wins by defacto, I mean this is a camera you can keep for decades the original Monochrome is not. Edited June 1, 2015 by Mornnb 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbl Posted May 31, 2015 Author Share #6 Posted May 31, 2015 Hah. True. Maybe I'll keep my M9M for old times' sake. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodluvan Posted June 1, 2015 Share #7 Posted June 1, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was looking at Erwin's initial impressions of the M246:http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-50/ I'm on a few waiting lists, but is it just me or do the M9M shots look no worse and if anything a bit cleaner? Does anyone have both and can comment on their experience? -jbl Jebus, don't start this $hit again "M8 was better for b/w", "CCD was better than CMOS for everything", "old MM have 'cleaner' (?) files" from looking at this forum and other leica forums, the least of our worries is alleged indefinable shortcomings in the digital raw Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted June 1, 2015 Share #8 Posted June 1, 2015 The MMII seems to have worse noise at high ISO... However it's sensor won't corrode so it wins by defacto, I mean this is a camera you can keep for decades the original Monochrome is not. Are you sure of that? Until now, they only camera I have for decades is the M6/MP. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 1, 2015 Share #9 Posted June 1, 2015 I'm on a few waiting lists, but is it just me or do the M9M shots look no worse and if anything a bit cleaner? Unless you desperately need Live View or a slightly quieter shutter I don't think anybody would change from an MM-1 to an MM-2 based on Erwin's examples. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted June 1, 2015 Share #10 Posted June 1, 2015 I have commented on those samples on other threads. They seem to be f**ked up for some reason, perhaps an error in processing. How can I tell? The amount of moire and the apparent huge pixel size in MM2 samples just doesn't make any sense, and if you need counter examples even Erwin’s own test parts 1 and 3 prove that something went wrong. There has been also ample evidence by *RAW* examples provided by other testers which prove that Erwin’s test is wrong. Don’t get fooled by the apparent ”science” in the form of a test chart. Erwin is capable of writing great lens reports and film tests, but unfortunately he made a mistake this time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 1, 2015 Share #11 Posted June 1, 2015 The MMII seems to have worse noise at high ISO... However it's sensor won't corrode so it wins by defacto, I mean this is a camera you can keep for decades the original Monochrome is not. Deficit. De facto. Do you mean "default"? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted June 1, 2015 Share #12 Posted June 1, 2015 Yes. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2015 Share #13 Posted June 1, 2015 Unless you desperately need Live View or a slightly quieter shutter I don't think anybody would change from an MM-1 to an MM-2 based on Erwin's examples. Steve Even without those examples, for most photographers it would be hard to justify the cost of changing from one to the other. This is one improved camera that does not invalidate its predecessor. Come to think of it, this goes for all digital M cameras up to now. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbl Posted June 1, 2015 Author Share #14 Posted June 1, 2015 Sorry, didn't mean to start something :-). I'm still buying the 246! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 1, 2015 Share #15 Posted June 1, 2015 Yes. I'm here for you. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted June 1, 2015 Share #16 Posted June 1, 2015 Even without those examples, for most photographers it would be hard to justify the cost of changing from one to the other. This is one improved camera that does not invalidate its predecessor. I wouldn't say that the Mono2 invalidates the mono1, but it is a pretty substantial improvement on it. MM1 vs MM2....weather sealing, double the battery capacity, much faster processing, better screen, greater reliability, greater stability, more dynamic range, corrosion free sensor, LED frame lines, sharper shutter release, quieter shutter etc... Come to think of it, this goes for all digital M cameras up to now. M8 vs M9? M8 vs 240? That may be a little something of a stretch... The M9 was a pretty big leap over the M8. I don't think any of us are clamoring to go back to an M8. M9 vs M240? Depending on your shooting style, going from the M9 to the 240 may not be worth an update. Although the M9 sensor issue is a problem... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 2, 2015 Share #17 Posted June 2, 2015 I've been back to Sean Reid's 'fruit and vegetable review' and looked a whole lot more closely and I have to say that yes, there has to be something wrong with Puts processing. Reid compares the MM and MM-2 with files at their native size, and then resizes the MM-2 files for further comparison. The down sized images are identical to the native files, as you would expect, and as Reid points out they still show the advantages of the MM-2 sensor in those areas where there is an advantage. What they show for the MM-2 are much cleaner images at higher ISO's with far less noise, contrary to Puts. And he makes a very good point that it isn't just high ISO where this lack of noise becomes important, because being able to pull 1.5 stops extra stops of detail from deep shadow areas in a 320 ISO file and without causing banding is where the advantage lies. So the MM-2's better shadow detail wouldn't be the sort of thing Ralph Gibson is interested in, but the lesson seems to be that even though the basic files look very much identical at 320 ISO, start pulling them around in post processing and the MM-2 files show themselves to be far more elastic. Have I been won over by the hidden depths of the MM-2!? Steve 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 2, 2015 Share #18 Posted June 2, 2015 M8 vs M9? M8 vs 240? That may be a little something of a stretch... The M9 was a pretty big leap over the M8. I don't think any of us are clamoring to go back to an M8. I can't say I found it much of a leap, except for sensor size and filters. The on-sensor acuity of the M8 is actually a smidgen better than the M9. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmx_2 Posted June 3, 2015 Share #19 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) I've tested both the MMI and now own the MMII and I can also say that the difference is only subtle between in terms of image quality for the two. For me the main reasons was: *I already own a M240 *I want to have the same battery and charger on both cameras *I want to be able to use my R-lenses *I prefer a bigger screen for viewing. *I want to be able to use a EVF *I want to be able to use my handgrip and bags on both. If imagequality vs cost was my only concern then the MMI would work just fine, but I was more than willing to pay for the above "features" and I'm very happy with the camera, it's extraordinary! Yes for the same amount of money I would get a used M9 and a MMI but then I cannot use my R-lenses, I'm stuck with sensor corrosion problems and I would get (technology wise) a 7 year camera. If the same goes for everyone I'm not sure, but I'm pretty confident that used prices on both M9 and MMI will stay quite stable. Edited June 3, 2015 by mmx_2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 3, 2015 Share #20 Posted June 3, 2015 As noise performance is nothing more than testing the camera's S/N ratio at various levels of gain in underexposure situations, comparing between tests is impossible if we are unaware of the base exposure. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.